query-graphql-master

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior ('the query is syntax-checked before it is sent') and the endpoint-visibility rule, but it never mentions that this endpoint can execute GraphQL mutations or other writes — a notable omission for a tool flagged destructive, and one that leaves the annotation unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the syntax-check behavior, then the endpoint/routing note. Every sentence carries information; the only mild slack is that the edge-vs-master aside is about endpoint selection rather than this tool's mechanics, but it is still decision-relevant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly states that data is returned as JSON, and it covers error-adjacent behavior (pre-send syntax checking) plus endpoint semantics. The main remaining gap is write/mutation capability, which the destructive annotation implies but the description never confirms.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, variables) carry their own examples and format notes in the schema. The description adds no syntax, escaping, or variables-handling detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Executes a GraphQL query against the Sitecore master endpoint') and the return form (JSON), then distinguishes the endpoint from its sibling by explaining that 'edge' serves published content only while 'master'/preview schemas read the authoring database. An agent can tell query-graphql-master apart from query-graphql-edge and authoring-graphql without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear selection criterion (master/preview reads the authoring DB and sees unpublished changes, edge does not) and routes schema discovery to a named alternative, introspection-graphql-master. It stops short of explicitly stating 'use query-graphql-edge when you only need published content', so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.